Page 153 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : MAYANK VINODKUMAR JAIN 663
of their application. Jurisdictional Officer Mr. Onkarnath Kesari, Inspector, Divi-
sion City Nagpur-II, Nagpur appeared and made written submissions. We heard
both the sides.
5. Observations and findings :
5.1 We have gone through the facts of the case and the written submis-
sions made by both, the applicant and the departmental authority. We find that
the issue before us is in respect of export of services i.e. whether the subject ser-
vices proposed to be rendered by them qualify as “Export of Services” under Sec-
tion 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017 or not.
5.2 Before we decide the question raised in this application it is essen-
tial that it be first determined whether or not the activities undertaken by the ap-
plicant pertains to matters or questions specified in Section 97(2).
5.3 From a perusal of transaction as discussed above in their submis-
sions, we observe that the supply of services is to an entity situated outside India
and therefore to answer their question we will be required to discuss the provi-
sions of Section 13 and Section 2(6) of IGST Act, 2017, pertaining to export of ser-
vices. Thus, to decide the issue, this authority will have to discuss the place of
supply in the subject case since “Export of services” means the supply of any
service when, (i) The supplier of service is located in India; (ii) The recipient of
service is located outside India; (iii) The place of supply of service is outside In-
dia; (iv) Payment for such service has been received by the supplier of service in
convertible foreign exchange (or in Indian rupees wherever permitted by the Re-
serve Bank of India); and (v) The supplier of service and the recipient of service
are not merely establishments of a distinct person in accordance with Explana-
tion 1 in Section 8.
5.4 As per the Section 97(2) of CGST Act, the questions on which ad-
vance ruling is sought under this Act, shall be in respect of, matters or issues
mentioned in Section 97(2)(a) to (g) only. We find that, “place of supply of ser-
vices” does not find mention in the said Section 97 mentioned above.
5.5 Further, the Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR), Ma-
harashtra State has decided on the subject matter i.e. “Export of services”, in the
case of M/s. NES Global Specialist Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. vide its Order No.
MAH/AAAR/55-R/03/2019-20, dated 2-8-2019 [2019 (31) G.S.T.L. 650 (App.
A.A.R. - GST)] and have made observations as under :-
“16 : On perusal of the provision of section 97(2), we find that the question
on the determination of place of supply has not been covered in the above
set of questions, on which advance ruling can be given. Therefore, we do
not have jurisdiction to pass any ruling on such questions which involve
the determination of the place of supply of goods or services or both.
19 : Thus, in view of the provision under section 2(6) of IGST ACT laid
down in respect of export of services and above discussed provision laid
down in section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 encompassing the specific
questions, which are sought under advance ruling, it can decisively be in-
ferred that the questions raised by the respondent before Advance Ruling
Authority were beyond the scope and jurisdiction of Advance Ruling, and
hence do not warrant any ruling thereon”.
5.6 We also find that Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling, Maha-
rashtra State (AAAR) has taken the same views on the similar matters before
them namely, M/s. Micro Instrument (Mrs. Vishakha Prashant Bhave), vide Appeal
GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  249